Posted on 08/19/2004 8:47:02 PM PDT by Southack
The US Army has wasted billions of dollars to upgrade a few hundred tanks to the M1A2 configuration (right), and wants to spend billions to convert more. The US Army claims that no tanks were lost to enemy fire during the Persian Gulf war, so why upgrade their anti-tank capabilities with a few gadgets which cost twice as much as the tanks themselves? Tanks remain vital, but the US Army spends half of its operations and maintenance budget for all ground equipment to keep 5000 M1 series tanks ready for World War III with the Soviets. There is much debate about the future organization of US Army combat forces, but no sane soldier believes a heavy division needs over 300 heavy M1 tanks. The Army should cut that number in half to make these divisions more mobile. The Army should scrap 3000 of these excess tanks to produce a 10-year supply of spare tank parts and engines, and upgrade the remainder as M1A3s to make them better people killers. An outstanding book on the employment of armor against light infantry is Mounted Combat in Vietnam, which was produced as part of the US Army's Vietnam Studies series. If the Army would have paid attention to its own lessons learned books, it would have sent a mechanized infantry brigade to Somalia rather than a light infantry brigade. After the Ranger fiasco, tanks were sent to Somalia and convoys escorted by tanks were never attacked. As a result, the US Army sent tanks for peacekeeping duty in Bosnia, and they were decisive intimidators in several confrontations. Unfortunately, Abrams tanks are poorly equipped to combat infantry. The Army needs to immediately procure 120mm canister "beehive" rounds and 120mm Improved Conventional Munition "bomblet" rounds. These rounds should have reduced propellant charges so they can be fired near friendly infantrymen. Current 120mm rounds produce so much force that infantrymen in front of the tank or within 50 meters to the side can be injured by the gun blast. A long-range laser-guided round (like the Israeli LAHAT) is also needed, perhaps modified 120mm Hellfire missiles. The Abrams also needs improved secondary armaments. The tank gunner has sights which allows him to engage targets at over 3000 meters. However, his 7.62mm coaxial machine gun only reaches out 1100 meters, so it should be upgraded to a .50 caliber (12.7mm) machine gun which can reach out over 2000 meters with far greater power. In addition, the loader’s basic M240C 7.62mm machine gun should be replaced with a M134 7.62mm mini-gun, which can fire ten times faster and pulverize nearby infantry. Finally, the tank commander also needs a better weapon to engage infantry, so replace his M2 .50 cal machine gun with the Mk-19 40mm automatic grenade launcher. Since these weapons provide far more firepower, they consume more ammunition. As a result, large steel ammo boxes would be added to the top of the turret.
The 7.62mm mini-gun and the 40mm auto grenade launcher These external gun mounts also need shields. When the M-113 Armored Personnel Carrier made its debut in Vietnam at the battle of Ap Bac, the .50 cal heavy machine gun mounted atop the M-113 had no armored shields. Anyone who rose out of the top hatch to employ the weapon became the primary target for enemy infantrymen and was quickly gunned down. The Army soon mounted gun shields to correct the problem, seen today on many M113A3 models.
The amtrack turret or Sheridan gun shields are good options One option is the small turret now used on Marine Corps amtracks which mount both a .50cal and 40mm gun. The M551Sheridan light tank used gunshields to form a "crow's nest", while the M-48 and M-60 tanks have large armored cupolas. However, the M1 Abrams has nothing, probably because its designers wanted a clean/mean look. The machine gun can be fired remotely from inside the tank, but visibility is poor, it may jam, and tank commanders have a fatal habit of riding in their open hatch anyway. The Abram tanks need armored shields on the tank commanders' and loaders’ gun mounts, perhaps shields from scrapped tanks could be used.
M-60 tanks had cupolas, but M1 tank crews are totally exposed There are low cost elements of the M1A2 program which should be adopted. GPS systems cost as little as $100 on the commercial market, and even the top-line military versions cost only $5000. An independent thermal viewer for the tank commander is a good idea, but it should cost no more than $10,000. Finally, a small external electric generator is essential, which cost less than $1000 on the commercial market. This allows the tank to shut off its gas guzzling engine while in defensive or overwatch positions. All of these upgrades should cost less than $100,000 per tank, and the Army could designate these infantry killer tanks as M1A3s. This would allow the Army to upgrade thousands of tanks to M1A3s at a lower cost than the M1A2 fiasco in which the Army paid $6 million dollars for minor upgrades to each $3 million dollar M1 tank. A final improvement is to replace the gas guzzling gas turbine engine with an economical diesel, and add a tank roof; ideas described in other G2mil articles. Follow this link for an excellent overview of the M1 tank program. Carlton Meyer editor@G2mil.com Update A year after this article appeared, the US Army began to purchase canister munitions, something I had recommended directly to the Marine Corps back in 1993. The Marines looked into it and wanted some, but determined it would be too expensive unless the Army joined in production, which it refused. XM1028 120mm Canister Tank CartridgeThe Tank Cartridge, 120mm, Canister, XM1028, is a tank round comprised of 1150 (est.) tungsten balls, which are expelled upon muzzle exit. There is no fuse on this round. While the dispersion pattern increases with range as the velocity of the balls decreases, the dense tungsten balls are used to minimize the velocity fall-off. This program responds to the USFK urgency of need signed by the CINC in Dec ‘99. RAPT Initiative Funding to be used for 6.0M in FY02 to accelerate development by one year earlier than previously planned. This round meets urgent CINC, USFK requirements to provide effective rapid lethal reaction against massed assaulting infantry armed with hand held anti-tank and automatic weapons at close range (500 meters or less) thereby improving survivability. Additionally, this round will significantly increase the tank’s lethality and enhance the tank crew’s survivability. This additional capability will give the Abrams Tank the ability to survive RPG ambushes and to fully support friendly infantry assaults.
 ___________________________________________
"Iron Soldiers" is a good Gulf war book, written by tankers from the 1st Mech Division. They disclosed that Soviet-made 125mm guns were unable to penetrate the M1A1 frontal armor, even a close ranges. Their tungsten penetrators stuck into the armor like arrows. However, a T-62 took out two M1A1s at night with flank shots. This Iraqi understood infra-red sensors, so his crew stayed inside their tanks and left the engines off. They used the back-up hand turret crank to aim their gun and blew away two M1A1s at close range before they were hit after their hot gun barrel exposed them. Iraqis who ran their engines to keep warm and power their turret where destroyed at long ranges. Others left their engines off, but stood on top of their tanks to find targets. US tankers thermal systems were so good they could pick up Iraqis "floating" off the ground, and simply fired at their feet. If all the Iraqi tankers sat "cold" at night, VII Corps would have been bloodied in some battles. Letters Some countries field tanks with a light cannon in addition to a 7.62mm machine gun as a coaxial weapon. A 50 caliber MG will be easier to retro-fit and should be nearly as effective, giving the gunner cost effective capability against light armour to at least 2000m. The Israelis use .50 BHMGs mounted above the main gun and these are used for both combat and training. Main Gun improvements. Many years ago Jane's Defence Yearbook compared the Rheinmental smooth bore and Royal Ordinance rifled 120mm guns. It concluded that the rifled gun was the better weapon since it was more versatile. American and German operational experience has confirmed this. One of the reasons that the British gun is more versatile is that it has a HESH round. As well as being an effective anti-tank round it is also a potent demolition round and eliminates the need for a separate HE round. It is unlikely that the Abrams will switch to the Royal Ordinance but it should be possible to issue a fin or drag stabilised HESH round. Other rounds that may prove useful are Canister, WP, Thermobaric and Flame-capsule. Loader's position. I've suggested Mk-19 GMGs mounted above the main gun for other vehicle types, but for a system such as the Abrams that has a human loader it makes more sense to mount this weapon on the loader's hatch. This allows the most suitable belt of ammunition to be loaded to suit the tactical situation. Possible loads include HE/HEDP, smoke, flare and chaff decoys or flechette rounds. Commander's position. The commander's firing position may retain the BHMG, probably with a mantellet so the commander can operate "heads up". The capabilities of BHMG tend to complement those of the loader's Mk-19. The Commander might have a Mk-19 instead of an M2 and the use of two such weapons would allow one to use offensive loads such as HE while the other fires decoy, smoke or flechette ammo. Alternate armaments for this position include the .50 calibre mini-gun The ability to fire rapid ten round bursts may actually reduce ammo expenditure. Gun Shields: Some Israeli tanks have a commander's hatch that can be lifted straight up like a manhole cover. A transparent armored screen could be fitted beneath this. This would be opaque to infra-red so the commander can operate heads up and enjoy good visibility while not giving away the tank's position to thermal imagers. Phil West phil.west@angelfire.com Great article. I have liked the idea of the Mk19 on the M1 for a while. As for the beehive round, that's currently in development, as is a laser guided munition. Also, bring back HEP ammo. Like the idea of the .50 cal coax, though ammo storage would be a problem (but do we really need 14,400 rounds of coax?) and a counter weight would have to added to the gun barrel, but its doable. I like the idea of slaving the commander's weapon to the CITV, though I still like the .50 Cal. Some other additions that could be added for low intensity are grenade launchers mounted on the loader's hatch that can be fired internally like that can be fitted to the Leo and a camera placed on the rear of the tank so the driver can back up from his station without the TC having to unbutton. As for the turbine, you know my position (and a vast majority of the users of this tank) is to get a new turbine, not a noxious, loud, unresponsive diesel. I found this 2001 article in "Armor" magazine which recommends many of your M1A3 ideas: Modifying the Abrams Tank For Fighting in Urban Areas. Phil West |
Sarge, did you see this article? Neato.
Top Speed for an M-1? As fast as the driver dares go!
I can personally relate the experience of driving on the highways near Ft. Huachuca, AZ, at 55MPH, and an M1A1 on the frontage road pacing me. But judging from how banged about the tank was, it was a rough ride for the crew.
Hey, Folks, just a few observations...
The M1 Series does what it's designed to do - engage enemy armor with overmatch range, firepower, and accuracy - but turning it into an infantry-killer might not be such the great thing.
All the add-on goodies we've discussed make for a great Swiss Army knife, but there are limits to what the vehicle can do. Ammo for all these gadgets has to be stowed someplace, and if anyone's ridden one, a tank's interior can get real crowded, real fast. Changing the gunner's coax, for instance: the ammo storage is rigged for 7.62; changing it to a .50 cal means less base load, or expand the ammo room.
An autoloader? The Soviet tanks have them. And we all knew to aim for the turret ring, to get a one-shot turret-launching catastrophic kill. Stories I heard coming out of Aberdeen indicate that the autoloader tended to load the crew, along with the round. Further, the turret has to be swung back to 000 azimuth, for the autoload to function; meaning that, during a fight, you had to slew the gun away from where the enemy was, to reload. With a man loading, the gunner/TC can keep the weapon trained on the enemy while the round's getting up.
And you do a damn good job making them, too.
Why not use the self-propelled M163 or buy more of the LAV-AA the USMC has?
Both are already available... all you need to do is hang a little extra armor on it.
Upgraded Israeli Merkava's in above Photo's.
An intersting thread on the M1A1..alot of good comments.
The other day on the T.V ..watched 2 M1A1's moving up the street in Najaf.....*Back to back.
At first..I thought the one tank was towing the other,
Then realized they were using this as a tactic to negate M1A1'a vulnerable spot..ie..The back turret deck and rear engine.
M1A1 was designed to be a fast mover and a schock,breakthru weapon.
This tank is zenith on the battlefield in this regard...and fullfills its purpose handsomely.
Its not a Ronson like the older tanks U.S. forces shoved at the enemy in numeric...even today..in worst situation..the Crew gets out..and thats what counts.
Israels Merkava above is a good ref for what a tank *can be,,as time evolution goes.
Combat lesson's learned applied type thing.
Merkava is more of a *Fight make stand tank....designed with the terrian in the region it will operate.
IDF reconfigured Merkava's turret with add on armor modules.
There is also a 360 field digital camera sytem....the TC commander can stay inside and be fully aware.
Shift;
What makes a tank especially valuable is its flexability in changing terrain and combat environment.
M1A1 can take just about anything fired at it so far.
I have looked for info..and at the time of this article am not really aware of situations where it faced *Top attack ATGM's...
IDF modded their turret design with this reality in mind.
Looking at the M1A1....it is entirley possible to mod this unit with additional armor modules to negate top attack.
I imagine they can design a armor package for the tanks rear aswell.
On a side note...I'm kinda in agreement with some of the posters on this thread who comment that the U.S. has everything it needs...the problem is the P.C. thingy..the resolve to use firepower application to shatter the enemy in situ.
a debate for another thread....ie..if we are going to Monday Quarterback Iraq,
my first comment is..*Why isn't airpower being used more?>
Looking at the destruction of Najaf's environs...it probably would have been best to let Helo's and A-10'S play,swepp the place until white surrender flags appear : )
Airpower unerves Hamdi bigtime...he flee's or dies....and thats what is needed.
If your enemy can get at you 360..your in trouble.
I guess this is the lesson being learned in Iraq.
As it stands...M1A1 is good for..another 15-20yrs?.
In that time..the U.S. will be into other Kinnetic energy gun systems..a new tank will emerge..and it will be an ass kicker like the M1A1 is.
So ya....U.S. has lost/write off...maybe 10-15 M1A1's so far in the Iraq war..with maybe 100+ offline for a time.
Far cry from the days of hundreds of gutted Shermans....tank gone.....crew gone.
M1A1 is still dominant in Iraq,
about the only thing that can stop it there.......is a bridge : )
BTTT!!!!!!!
Bump for later.
1. A gatling weapon used in a flat trajectory scenario (such as a tank firing on troops) would only be really effective if the barrel could cover a large area in quick movements (i.e. traverse the width of a house at 30 meters in one second). I don't believe the current turrets have that speed.
2. The GAU system is entirely too powerful for an urban scenario. You'd have hundreds of slugs punching through houses/buildings/schools for blocks. If you are that unconcerned with collateral damage, you may as well use air power or artillery.
For 105mm and up, I agree that auto-loaders aren't ready for prime-time.
But for the 30mm gattling cannon as found on the A-10 attack fighter, auto-loading is the best solution, and it has proven itself in combat.
Moving that system from the air into an old M1 that would otherwise remain mothballed, deleting the 105mm main battle cannon from said M1, and upgrading the treads from 2 on the M1 to 4 half-tracks on the new vehicle would give you an urban infantry support platform.
It would be like having a super-armored A-10 attack fighter parked on the ground along with our infantry; always available; damn tough to kill; unmatched firepower always on tap.
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
That's the most intelligent criticism of the idea that I've seen so far. Good point. Not a deal-killer, but good point.
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
The Merkava is a great system. Unlike the old M1's that we have mothballed here in the States, it doesn't really need any upgrades at this point in time.
It would still benefit from having 4 half-tracks instead of just 2 giant full-sized treads (who wants to be immobilized if you lose 1 track, after all?!), but Israel has to be more careful with its tiny military budget than does the U.S., so that upgrade might not be worth the cost to them.
But you'll also notice that Israel isn't really using A-10's or AC-130 Spectre's in combat. Israel's approach to urban combat is entirely different than ours.
Military doctrines that use A-10's and AC-130's in combat would benefit from an M1A10 four-half-tracked, GAU-8 equipped upgrade of old, mothballed M1's.
Whether Israel's military would benefit from such a beast is another thing altogether.
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
Why bother with a GAU-8? Go with a the Hughes Chain Gun from the Apache or a 20mm Vulcan. Or maybe quad 50's or or 20mm or twin 30mm or 40mm (IIRC Dusters did some pretty good work in Vietnam and the ZSU-23-4 was real threat against both air and soft targets). The GAU-8 is massive overkill for most urban work - remember, it was designed to kill tanks! Heck, maybe we could rework the Sgt. York (a total loser as ADA) into an infantry support vehicle.
Also these weapons are lighter, allowing for more armor or more ammo.
Suddenly surrounded by 600 enemy combatants, an existing M1 crew could fire 1 beehive round, pause, manually reload, swing the turret, fire a 2nd beehive round, pause, manually reload, swing the turret a bit more, fire a 3rd beehive round, etc., until after some great period of time a full circle was completed.
In contrast, a modified M1 with the GAU-8 would swing the turret 360 degrees while firing off 900 or more rounds of 30mm exploding anti-personnel rounds in that same time. No pauses. No manual reloads.
For an infantry support role in such a situation, the GAU-8 is clearly the preferred choice over the 105mm or 120mm beehive round.
We've got about what, some 2,000 mothballed M1's right now in the states?? Why not turn them into a brand new killing machine: an urban assault infantry support weapons platform?!
Heck, move their old 105mm main battle cannons onto Strykers or Bradleys if you want (to free up room to install the GAU-8), but do *something* to get the A-10's GAU-8 gattling cannon on the ground in an infantry support role in Iraq!
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
I've only suggested two things: switching the mothballed M1's 105mm (or 120mm in some cases) with the A-10 fighter's GAU-8 30mm gattling cannon, and changing the two existing M1 treads into four half tracks.
What costly problems are these changes frought with, specifically?
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
IDF got some good mileage out of their M-113's with the auto gun during the Lebanon offensive in 1982.
Guess Hamdi just got slaughtered when he stood his ground.
The Blazer box armor add on's to IDF's tanks..plus the *Shredders...sent Hamdi running for Beruit on masse : )
Syrians got some too in the Suf mountains...laughing.....during a documentary from that war..a Lebanese civilian is at an Israeli check point..and wanting to go to his home up thar in the Suf.
"Waddya mean I can't go home....theirs no more Syrians up there....you've killed them all"!
Back to M1A1;
It would make sense to trial some new concepts....
It certainly would give a market reality on the re-engineering and fab.....create jobs : )
What use are the old M1A1's if they park them in storage...especially if they are 105mm gunned.
mod several hundred....part out the usefull to foreign sales or spares as you commented.
Still..I think M1A1 needs to get ready for Mr Top attack missile.
if addressed properly....M1A1 will be vaunted for a long time to come. Be interesting to see what changes occur to M1A1 in the future,
yet....we are likely to read more on the Military's money haggling/manuvering with Congress.
My thing is this: How hard would it be to just bring the M163s out of mothballs instead? Self-propelled Vulcans with a high degree of commonality on Air Force and Navy planes (ergo, we still make parts because the M61A1 will be in the F/A-22 and F-35).
Thw LAV-AA uses the GAU-12 from the AV-8B. Both are already in service. Why not use them instead? Cheaper, and just as effective.
Because your idea doesn't generate a 20-year-long acquisition program that keeps a lot of consultants and civil servants employed.
It's my understanding that the M163 wouldn't help us because it can't shrug off RPG hits. The M1 can.
So when going into an urban warfare zone filled with RPG-carrying fanatics, some sort of gattling-cannon on an M1-based platform would be preferred.
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
Yeah. I could go with either the GAU-4 or the GAU-12 instead of the GAU-8, if necessary.
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
